FATE, Texas — The political temperature in Fate, TX is getting hotter. A new recall effort, this time targeting four of Fate’s top elected officials, has been launched by local residents who say the city’s leadership crossed a line when they pursued the removal of a fellow council member.

According to statements circulating among Fate residents and online posts from local activist Christopher Rains, petitioners have begun the first formal steps to recall Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Mark Hatley, Councilman Rick Maneval, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman. The effort comes just months after the same officials were involved in advancing a recall petition against Councilwoman Codi Chinn, whose recall is already scheduled to be on the May 2026 ballot.

According to documents filed with the city, Rains submitted the paperwork on March 9th to start a 30-day window in which the organizers must gather enough signatures from registered voters in Fate to force recall elections against the four officials. For this election, the magic number is 351 verified signatures, according to city guidelines. There is a separate petition for each member.

Rains, who has been active in the local political dispute, announced the development in a public message on Facebook.

“As promised, after several weeks of work, the petitioners affidavits for the Recall of Mayor Greenberg, Councilman Hatley, Councilman Maneval and Councilwoman Huffman have been filed with city officially kicking off the phase two, signature collection,” Rains wrote.

In the past week, organizers have been setting up locations where residents can sign the petitions, while also encouraging interested voters to contact organizers directly through an email account established for the effort.

“As we push forward, we have 30 days to collect signatures from the public,” the statement continued. “We have all witnessed the different things that have taken place since last May. Now we can remind the city council that the job is to work for the city of Fate and its residents, not their own agendas.”

The previous affidavit against Chinn reached the minimum required signatures in less than 7 days. As previously reported by PipkinsReports, officials certified the petition against Chinn, paving the way for voters to decide her political fate during the May 2026 election.

That earlier effort galvanized some of Chinn’s supporters, with some arguing this new recall is a legitimate accountability measure against those who sought to undo an election, while others view the move as political revenge on behalf of a Councilmember who may be recalled for ‘Conduct Unbecoming,’ which critics define as repeatedly insulting constituents on social media.

Pipkins Reports received a copy of the new “Affidavit of Petitioners’ Committee” late Monday afternoon from the city. The documents reveal that the organizer of the petition is Christoper Rains, whose spouse, Ashley Rains, is running for Fate City Council – Place 2, and is also a member of the Petitioners Committee.

There are four separate Affidavits, one for each councilman being recalled. They are essentially identical, with the only exception being that one person signed on as a committee member for all affidavits except for that of Martha Huffman.

In addition to the Rains’, the other committee members are: Chrystal Powers, Les Darlington, Amanda Archer – Damle, Kaylyn Cowan, Mario Ramos Jr., Michael Brandon Vines, Brenda Rekieta, Brittany Otten, Daniel Otten, Nikki Robinson, Avah Helton, Amanda Oldfield, and Juan Avila.

Lance Megyesi signed on for Greenberg, Hatley & Maneval, but not for Huffman.

[Image of petition against Mayor Greenberg. Other petitions are similar as noted above.]

Side Note: In an unusual twist, the Affidavit copy that we received from the City of Fate had no redactions. This is a matter we will need to investigate further, as this action appears to be a change from previous documents we have received. Pipkins Reports has taken the proactive step to redact all persons’ addresses, as we have done previously.

Recall petitions are not unprecedented, but they are uncommon in most Texas municipalities. However, a recall effort critics characterize as retaliatory is so rare that we could not immediately find a comparative example. Texas law allows cities with charter provisions permitting recall to remove elected officials before their terms expire if voters determine the officials have lost the public’s confidence.

In Fate’s case, the situation has become particularly unusual because the political weapon may soon become pointed in both directions.

At this time, it remains to be seen whether the new petition effort will gather the number of signatures required to trigger recall elections. Still, the effort signals that the dispute inside Fate’s political community is far from over.

*This is an ongoing story. Follow Pipkins Reports on Facebook or X for updates.

Thune’s Dismissive Smear of Election Integrity Concerns Demands His Immediate Ouster

Opinion – Senate Majority Leader John Thune has revealed his utter contempt for the American electorate. Amid mounting pressure to advance the SAVE America Act—a straightforward bill requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to safeguard federal elections—Thune shrugged off the grassroots outcry as nothing more than a “paid influencer ecosystem.”

This arrogant dismissal, captured in recent comments to reporters, isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s a betrayal of the millions of everyday Americans who demand secure elections as a cornerstone of our republic.

Thune’s remarks didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They came as conservatives, including President Trump and a chorus of activists, ramped up calls for the Senate to use procedural tools like a talking filibuster to force a vote on the SAVE Act.

The legislation, already passed by the House, addresses widespread fears of voter fraud by ensuring only citizens cast ballots—a measure supported by an overwhelming 80-90% of Americans across party lines, according to polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, and others. Yet Thune, ensconced in his leadership perch, waved it away, implying the push is manufactured by compensated online agitators rather than genuine civic concern.

As one critic aptly put it, this reduces the legitimate worries of voters to a “social media echo chamber,” ignoring the real-world efforts of poll watchers, state lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who’ve fought for transparency since the chaotic expansions of mail-in voting during the 2020 pandemic.

Let’s be clear: Thune’s words aren’t a mere slip; they’re a window into the soul of a career politician who’s lost touch with the base that elevated Republicans to Senate control. Public skepticism about election integrity isn’t fringe—it’s mainstream. Polls consistently show that a significant portion of voters, including independents and minorities, harbor doubts about the security of our processes, fueled by irregularities in battleground states and the rapid, unchecked changes implemented under the guise of COVID emergencies.

Organizations like the Election Integrity Network and grassroots groups have documented these issues through audits, lawsuits, and reform proposals, all driven by patriotism, not paychecks.

To smear these efforts as the work of “paid influencers” is not only insulting but dangerously divisive, echoing the elitist disdain that has alienated voters from the GOP establishment for years.

This isn’t Thune’s first rodeo in undermining conservative priorities. As the No. 2 Republican under Mitch McConnell, he previously downplayed candidates focused on 2020 election concerns, blaming them for midterm setbacks rather than addressing the underlying voter frustrations.

Now, as Majority Leader, he wields immense power over the legislative agenda, yet he’s dragging his feet on border security, spending reforms, and yes, election safeguards—issues that define the MAGA movement and the party’s platform. His reluctance to “bust the filibuster” or rally votes for the SAVE Act, despite a Republican majority, reeks of cowardice or worse: complicity in preserving a system that benefits the uniparty elite. Even Elon Musk has publicly questioned if Thune is “owned by someone,” a sentiment echoed across conservative networks.

The backlash has been swift and justified. Activists, commentators like Tomi Lahren, and everyday Americans on platforms like X have torched Thune for his arrogance, with calls to “vacate the chair” gaining traction. From podcasters decrying him as a “RINO on steroids” to voters labeling him a “damn liar,” the outrage underscores a deeper fracture: Senate Republicans are failing their base, and Thune is the poster child for this dysfunction.

Thune Must Go—Step Down or Be Vacated

John Thune’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader is a disgrace, a glaring example of how Washington insiders prioritize self-preservation over the will of the people. By belittling the fight for election integrity as a fabricated “ecosystem” of influencers, he has spit in the face of the 77 million-plus Trump voters and the broader conservative coalition that demands action, not excuses.

This isn’t leadership; it’s sabotage. In a constitutional republic, where the legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed, dismissing voter concerns as paid propaganda erodes the very foundation of our democracy. Thune isn’t just wrong—he’s unfit.

It’s time for Thune to face the music: Step down immediately and let a true conservative warrior take the reins. If he refuses, Senate Republicans must summon the spine to vacate the chair, just as House conservatives did to oust Kevin McCarthy when he failed to deliver.

Anything less is a capitulation to the swamp, allowing Democrats to block vital reforms while illegals potentially sway elections and fraud festers unchecked.

The American people aren’t “paid influencers”—we’re the bosses. And we’re done with traitorous enablers like Thune. Remove him now, or risk losing the Senate and the republic along with it. The clock is ticking, Republicans: Act, or be replaced.

FATE, TX – Just two months after Councilwoman Codi Chinn publicly posted an unredacted recall affidavit that included citizens’ names and home addresses, she now refuses to release a similar document that would reveal her supporters. Her explanation for the change, however, appears to conflict with information provided by city officials.

The dispute centers on an “Affidavit of Petitioners’ Committee,” the formal document required to begin a recall process under Texas law. The affidavit lists the members of the committee seeking the recall, including their names and home addresses.

Earlier this year, such an affidavit was filed to initiate a recall election against Chinn. According to records obtained by Pipkins Reports, Chinn received the document through her city-issued email account and later posted the affidavit publicly on Facebook without authorization or redacting the listed addresses.

The disclosure drew widespread criticism from residents and local observers who argued that publishing citizens’ home addresses could expose them to harassment or intimidation. A police report later named Chinn as a suspect in a possible unlawful disclosure investigation, a matter previously reported by Pipkins Reports.

Among the individuals listed on that recall affidavit were Andrew Greenberg and several members of the Fate City Council.

At the time, Chinn denied wrongdoing and defended her decision to publish the document.

The political situation in Fate has since flipped.

Supporters aligned with Chinn recently filed their own recall affidavit targeting Greenberg along with council members Mark Hatley, Rick Maneval, and Martha Huffman.

When residents asked on social media whether Chinn would again release the affidavit publicly, she declined and suggested there was a key distinction between the two situations.

“… there’s one big difference between the email we received from the city secretary when it was notifying council about my recall and the one notifying us about the recall for Greenberg, Hatley, Maneval, and Huffman,” Chinn wrote online. “One came without a confidentiality disclaimer and the other did. I’ll let you do your ‘investigative journalist work’ to figure out why that is.”

So, we did. To verify the claim, Pipkins Reports contacted Fate City Manager Michael W. Kovacs to ask whether the city had changed the language used in emails sent to council members regarding recall documents.

Kovacs said it had not. “All City originated emails have always carried the notice below,” Kovacs wrote in an email response.

The notice warns recipient that the message “may contain confidential and/or privileged information” and it cautions against copying or disclosing the contents if the recipient is not authorized.

In addition to the standard email disclaimer, Kovacs also noted that council members have long received additional guidance reminding them that although elected officials may view unredacted documents in their official capacity, they remain subject to restrictions on disclosing confidential information. The additional disclaimer says, “As Mayor and Council Members you are entitled to see any document of the city without redaction of confidential information,” Kovacs wrote. “However, you are also bound to the restrictions against disclosure of any information deemed confidential by the Public Information Act.”

Kovacs added that the city recently moved the confidentiality language higher in the email to emphasize the notice, following consultations with the city attorney during a period that included several recall petitions and open records requests. (ie: after Chinn disclosed the document)

Public records law and city policy

Under the Texas Public Information Act, most government records are presumed public unless they fall under specific statutory exceptions. The law requires government bodies to withhold certain categories of sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account data, and some contact information. While a citizen’s name and address may appear in some public filings, many municipalities (including Fate) adopt internal practices designed to limit the disclosure of personal identifying information when documents are shared publicly. This includes the redaction of addresses of the public.

Opinion and analysis

The facts of the situation are relatively straightforward.

When the recall affidavit targeted Chinn, she had no problem releasing the document publicly on social media with citizens’ addresses intact. When a similar affidavit surfaced targeting her political opponents, the same kind of disclosure suddenly became off limits.

Chinn has attributed that difference to changes in the email disclaimer language. The city manager’s explanation suggests the warning language was not new, but rather long-standing. Only the prominent location of the language changed.

So it would appear that Chinn’s response is a case of political convenience.

Ultimately, voters in Fate will decide how they view the episode. But the unfolding recall battle has already delivered one clear lesson. In politics, the standard you apply to others often returns to test you.

### Pipkins Reports has requested a copy of the Affidavit of Petitioners’ Committee from the City of Fate. When received, we will provide that information to the public … redacted of course, as we did previously.